TED Conversations

A wal
  • A wal
  • Cambridge
  • United Kingdom

This conversation is closed.

General relativity is wrong!

If there are any relativity experts here I'd love to get their feedback on this because I don't think anyone can dispute this. No one's been able to put up a decent counter argument so far. In the other topic (Can Anyone Answer These Black Hole Questions) I briefly cover lots of different points. In this topic I'm focussing on the coordinate systems used to define a black hole because it's right at the heart of what's wrong with general relativity and why black hole event horizons can never ever be reached by any object. Please excuse the tone, it was written for another website and I'm getting frustrated with physicists who can't argue my points but seem equally unable to admit that they're wrong.


'If an object were able to reach an event horizon eventually from the perspective of an external observer but it happened in a shorter amount of proper time from the free-fallers perspective then there wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that an object can never reach an event horizon from the outside means that it can never reached from any objects perspective, and to claim that an object can reach an event horizon from its own perspective is the exact physical equivalent to claiming that an object can reach the speed of light from it's own perspective but not from any other, it makes no sense whatsoever, especially when you consider that objects themselves are made up of numerous smaller objects to which the same rules also apply. How could the front part of an object possibly reach an event horizon before the back part of the object? If it's not possible to reach it from the outside then it's not possible to reach it. This should be obvious. An event can't both happen and not happen. It can happen at different times from different objects perspectives relative to other events but if something never happens in one frame of reference then it can never happen in any of them. This is standard SR and it's not okay to just ignore it when thinking about gravitational acceleration.

Share:

Closing Statement from A wal

This is getting really annoying now. I just tried another science forum and the same thing happened. All they do is attack me and don’t put up even a single decent argument to defend their position, because they can’t.

Ask them how an object can possibly cross an event horizon when it’s physically impossible for any object to reach from the perspective of an external observer, which applies to the front part of an extended object being unable to reach the horizon before the back part of the object. If they say that objects can reach an event horizon from the perspective of an external object then ask what happens to the object that’s crossed the horizon if the external object then accelerates away. They can’t answer. It’s hilarious.

Feel free to use any of my arguments and send me a message if you want me to write a reply to something they've said. I'm not making this stuff up, I'm not a crackpot and I'm not mistaken. As unbelievable as it sounds GR really is wrong, and the gits refuse to even acknowledge there's a problem. They're just digging a deeper hole for themselves. It's not just wrong it's inconsistent on so many levels that they really should all be shot, or at least sacked and publicly humiliated, or maybe thrown in jail for stealing peoples money and abusing public trust as well as science.

I'm not really sure where to go from here. Even if I did have the technically knowledge to put together a scientifically presently paper it would never be published because from what I've heard the peer review system is set up to filter out anything that contradicts the mainstream viewpoint so that it's allowed no credibility and then they expel and smear however dared to try it. I've been hearing stories from other people about how they always change part of the submission and then refute it based on the change that they themselves made. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. After speaking to many of them I've realised they're more dogmatic than the religious.

  • Apr 29 2013: Einstein showed that space can be curved by gravitational fields. That means that high mass objects can cause light to be deflected from its true course to a new path making things on the other side of the high mass object appear to be offset.
    That was shown in the eclipse of 1919 to a very high precision. Over and over again, relativity has been shown to be correct, while perhaps it is not complete due to its ignoring quantum effects, what it does predict, it does so very precisely.
    Now, knowing that, you can say, where is the mass such that light from beyond this massive object will be distorted in such a way to give the image that we see.
    This has been used to help prove the existence of dark matter and to correctly calculate the orbit of mercury and calculate the orbit of massive pulsars around their companion stars.
    And its not just quasars.. Its anything beyond a massive object where the light has to travel close to or through the massive object.
    Actually, because we are so close to the sun, the entire sky is shifted slightly due to the effects of gravity on the light falling on us.
    You don't need any big mirrors or other tricks, you can do it all with gravity and a little math.
    • thumb
      Apr 30 2013: I understood one thing here in TED. There is a limitation to explain pure science here. I try not to be too technical and discuss other questions. To say that the general theory of relativity is wrong in many ways or it is wishful thinking requires some serious ignorance. May be you are wasting energy.
      • Apr 30 2013: Ted is all about ideas so it's never a bad idea to question anything. On the other hand its never a bad idea to take the opportunity to explain a difficult concept in perhaps a different way than has been seen before.
        • thumb
          Apr 30 2013: I think science explanations are very welcome here. Many, many people are interested in science but do not have access to people with a serious background in science who can answer their questions. There is plenty of science online, of course, but it is very easy for people without training in the subject to misinterpret what they read.

          If people who actually understand science are willing to help others understand, it is only a benefit! Otherwise people who don't actually understand are left only to guess together and can mislead each other.

          Thanks for helping clarify.
  • Apr 27 2013: Things get to the event horizon. We can see matter falling into a black hole and jets of radiation emanating out along the axis.
    However, the event horizon is the point at which space becomes so curved as to not allow light out, back into our universe. Therefore, we see something approach the event horizon, but not cross it (obviously) and just fade away.
    You are just postulating a modern example of Achilles and the tortoise paradox again
    • Apr 28 2013: What form/s of radiation escape black holes and what evidence does science have to verify such?
        • Apr 28 2013: Tell us, how does just light show up as an image. If you take a brilliant light behind other obscuring objects, the object putting off the light will not show up, only the light will.
      • Apr 28 2013: You need to type slower because that last question did not make any sense.
        • Apr 28 2013: Only to someone that can't answer the question.
      • Apr 28 2013: I might be able to answer the question if I knew what it was about
        • Apr 28 2013: Science is claiming it can see not only a quasars light behind another galaxy, but science is claiming to see the quasar off to the sides of the galaxy blocking the quasars view.

          My question is, how does light alone carry the image of the quasar itself?

          If science were to set up a glass case with one million candle power behind a fence, would you see the image of the glass case off to the side of the fence?

          Of course science claims that gravity plays a role, so how exactly does gravity or gravitational lensing carry the image of the quasar itself?

          If there was a big mirror to reflect that image onto some dust cloud, maybe that image could travel millions of miles and show up on that dust cloud, but without the --background---dust cloud---- and a mirror to project the image of the quasar, how in the world can science see the images of the quasars?

          The light from a quasar cannot carry its own image.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 1 2013: No I'm not. We can't see matter falling into a black hole. The light would be moving in the wrong direction for us to see it even if it were possible. The jets of radiation aren't coming from inside the black hole. That's impossible even according to general relativity. We never see an object disappear when it approaches an event horizon. It just keeps slowing down. This is not a visual effect. It's caused by length contraction and time dilation. To then say that objects can reach an event horizon from their own perspectives is a complete contradiction. You need to use the Rindler coordinates to see what's happening from the perspective of a falling object. They're used to describe the perspective of an accelerating object, but they also apply to objects that are being accelerated by gravity because free-fall is not inertial as general relativity assumes. There's no difference between following a straight path through flat space-time and following a curved path through flat space-time. They're physically equivalent.
      • May 2 2013: Once you are inside the black hole event horizon light cones are pointed away from you. The jets of radiation are x-rays that are emitted from the pole of the black hole due to infalling matter.
        If you are using Rindler coordinates, it is true that a particle will take infinite Rindler time (T) to reach the event horizon but a finite time in Minkowski time (t) to do so after which it will pass through the event horizon.
        From the point of view of the particle entering the black hole, nothing much will change. In fact, it is possible that passing the point of no return would be missed completely (as it is indistinguishable from all other points in time)
        The Rindler coordinate system does not extend into the black hole and goes imaginary if you try, its value is in describing the coordinate system, and space energy in an accelerating frame or within a gravity field.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 3 2013: Text book answer, and completely wrong.

          Light cones can never point away from you. That would mean the arrow of time would be reversed. The four dimensions are all at right right angles to each other and the light cones tilt less in response to the same amount of acceleration the harder you accelerate. For a light cone to reach 90 degrees an object would have to travel at a relative velocity of the speed of light. It works just like SR.

          Jets of x-ray radiation originate from outside the event horizon, even according to GR.

          The Minkowski and, I can't remember the name of the other one, begins with a K, coordinates are in direct contradiction with the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems. You can't just switch coordinates that give descriptions inconsistent with each other. You can't change reality by switching coordinate systems. If the Rindler and Schartzschild coordinates fail at an event horizon them they're wrong all the time. Think about. How close to the horizon do you have to be before they stop working?

          No external object can ever observe another object reaching an event horizon. If that were possible then it go close enough to the horizon to see an object cross it and the move away and the object that's crossed would have to then move back across the horizon when the other object has moved a certain distance away. So the back part of an extended object can't reach the horizon before the front part. It would mean that every object that ever reaches the horizon would have to do it at exactly the same time. At what point in the life of the black hole would this happen?

          If you use the frame of reference of the singularity then there's never enough time for any object to reach it and the would be a boundary marking the closest point that any object could have gotten at that time which moves inwards at the speed of light, but slower from a distance as an inverse square in the same way that gravity falls off and you have a black hole.
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2013: Hi A wal!

    I am not sure if I have understood your question correctly but I think this explains perspectives of an object falling through a Schwarzschild black hole (free falling) and that of an hovering observer near event horizon consistent with SR.

    http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/generalrelativity/BlackHoleEventHorizon.html

    Can you explain where is the problem?
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 1 2013: Yes, that's exactly right. I'm using special relative to describe gravity. One of the problems is that general relativity is in direct contradiction with special relativity because it allows objects to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light when the reach an event horizon. The main problem is that general relativity views free-fall as inertial and there's absolutely no need for a different version of relativity to describe gravity. Special relativity does it perfectly. GR is nothing but a failed attempt to reformulate SR.
      • thumb
        May 2 2013: Dear A wal, I think you need to go back to basics. Or may be I am having problems with the language. GR is a different version of relativity to describe gravity? I simply don't understand what you mean by saying, 'One of the problem is that general relativity is in direct contradiction with special relativity because it allows objects to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light when the(y) reach an event horizon.'
        General relativity comes from the observation that if you are in free fall (the classic example is an elevator where the cable breaks), you regain the original symmetry -- you can no longer tell which direction is up or down. The acceleration due to gravity cancels the uniform acceleration of free fall, leaving you with what looks like an inertial reference frame. Einstein basically decided to see what happens if you make those things exactly equivalent, and skipping over a lot of math, GR pops out.

        On the face of it, it seems like this idea can't work. Consider an extended object, such as a person, in free fall feet first. Your feet are closer to earth than your head, so feel a stronger gravitational attraction. Also, your left side and right side are pulled in slightly different directions toward the center of the earth. These are tidal forces, and they tend to stretch you out in the direction you are falling, and compress you in the other direction. Normal uniform acceleration doesn't do this, which a normal person might have taken as reason to abandon the whole idea as a mistake. Instead, Einstein showed that if you were willing to give up Euclidean geometry this problem was fixed. Free fall is an inertial reference frame, but space-time is curved by massive objects. This is how the idea of general relativity automatically requires curved space-time.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 2 2013: Yes, GR postulates that gravitational acceleration is an inertial reference frame, but this is simply not true. What GR describes as tidal force is in fact what SR describes as proper acceleration. Both are caused by the difference in the strength of a force over different parts of the same extended object. An object under uniform acceleration can’t feel a thing.

          It's not ignorant to realise that GR isn't even self consistent and that SR is much more than a description of a special case of relativity in the absence of gravity. SR works every bit as well as a description of gravitational acceleration as it does conventional acceleration. The only difference is that conventional acceleration is caused by energy, which pushes objects apart and gravitational acceleration is caused by mass which pulls objects together, and E=mc^2 which explains why gravity is so weak.
  • Apr 27 2013: Models - Poincare made an interesting comment years ago Also, Karl Popper had some interesting ideas on falsification. All that is fine, but who are you? Stephen Hawkins? Isn't that a fair question? He lives near you - His opinion should matter to you. Just because something may not be perfect if you can show that - Doesn't mean it isn't the best model we have. Enough said - why waste time reading me when there are geniuses who work on this? For most of us the Bohr atom is helpful even if reality is more complicated. If I have been unfair let me know, but this is really deep stuff. I hit my wall as a graduate student in physics forty years ago.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 1 2013: His opinion should matter to me because he lives near to me? I'm somebody who understands how relativity applies to gravity. The best model we have is SR and it is perfect. Geniuses according to who? Each other! It only seems deep and complicated when it's being explained by someone who doesn't really know what they talking about. It really isn't. They're usually just parroting back what they've memorised. That's all you need to do to become a physicist.
      • May 2 2013: Good - You understand and you are vouching for him. Me I'm from the South and are you going to see a dinosaur out your window or is your study of science from a literal reading of the Bible that was not meant to be taken literally. We have had an outbreak of creationism here.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 2 2013: Er, you've completely lost me. What?
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 25 2013: ... An object moving on the horizontal line would represent an object moving at the speed of light through space and frozen in time, like reaching an event horizon if that were possible. Objects always travel at the speed of light through space-time. The angled line representing the object moving at half the speed of light is moving through time at much more than half the speed of vertical line. When viewing an object moving at a relative velocity of half the speed of light it doesn't move through time at half the speed of light because length contraction and time dilation shorten together and velocity is a measurement of distance over time. If you work out an objects velocity taking time dilation and length contraction into account then all objects move through space-time at exactly the speed of light, which is represented by the two lines always being the same length.

    Objects follow a curved path when they accelerate because acceleration is curvature when one of the dimensions is time. When an object is following a a curved path through two spatial dimensions it gets pushed in the opposite direction of it two directions of travel, and exactly the same thing happens when one of the dimensions is time. It feels a force pushing it back in the opposite spatial direction to the direction it's accelerating in (length contraction) and in the opposite direction of its direction in time (time dilation). If you draw a curved line on the circle to represent the angled line moving into the same frame of reference as the vertical line at rest with each other so the two lines are now parallel you can see that the object that accelerated traveled further and so isn't the same length in the vertical direction if they're the same length overall and so has traveled through less time than the inertial observer, which is why objects travel slower through time when they accelerate.

    It's simple because there only ever needs to be two dimensions involved at a time and any two will do.
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 25 2013: There is absolutely no distinction between an object following a straight path through curved space-time (as GR incorrectly describes) and an object following a a curved path through flat space time (as SR correctly describes) accept that mass curves inwards towards itself, pulling objects together and energy curves outwards away from itself, pushing objects apart. Gravity is so much weaker than the other forces because of the energy/mass equivalence (E=mc^2). Acceleration causes the same effect of time dilation and length contraction regardless of what's causing it and gravity (acceleration due to mass) can't accelerate objects to a relative velocity of the speed of light any more than acceleration due to energy can. This is how simple it really is.

    Draw a circle. These two lines are two of of the four dimensions. All four are at right angles to each other but when an object accelerates in a straight line only two dimensions are involved; the spacial direction that the object is accelerating in and time, so a flat plain with just two dimensions is all that's needed to show acceleration. The only difference between space and time is the fact that we can only see in one direction of time and this creates a very different perception of it but in reality they're exactly the same. The horizontal direction represents time and the vertical direction is what it is; a direction in space. Now draw a straight line going from the centre to top and another straight line going from the centre at a 45 degree angle to the first, like the hands of a clock. This represents an inertial observers perspective of another object moving relative to it at half the speed of light. If you turn the circle so that the other line is vertical then you can see that the other object measures itself as static in space and moving through time at the full speed of light...
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 14 2013: What are your ideas on the difference between mass energy and electric energy regarding the Ricci tensor and R?
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 15 2013: You mean the fact that the Ricci tensor has to be set to 0 for the equations to work but that means it's describing a universe with no matter and what R represents keeps changing. You've been reading Steven Crothers stuff. I'm in contact with him and I want to join forces and write something together because we'd compliment each other very well. I suppose he doesn't have to because he can easily use anything I've wrote but I can't follow his arguments well enough to use them.
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 14 2013: 10. If singularities aren't singular in time as physicists claim then black holes are cone shaped in four dimensions. Wtf? The fact that they are singular in time as well as space makes them four dimensional spheres that are infinitely time dilated and length contracted at zero distance and larger as an inverse square as the distance of the observer increases, but always perfect four dimensional spheres at any distance. There's never enough time to reach a singularity because they don't exist for any length of it. As a black hole forms its event horizon expands outwards at the speed of light which is the first half of the hypersphere, and then it contracts at the speed of light which is the second half of the hypersphere. The event horizon marks the edge of the unreachable distance from the singularity. How can, and why the hell would singularities be single points in space but not in time?

    11. How is following a straight path through curved space-time as GR attempts to describe any different from following a curved path through flat space-time as SR correctly describes?

    12. This one's just for the physicists. How thick are you? You love to pretend that you have a superior understanding of how the universe works but in reality you haven't got the first clue how to even think in the right way to do that. You evade questions that you can't answer until you're backed into a corner and then you just shut up. It's so obvious that tidal force is proper acceleration and gravitational acceleration is not inertial. If not one of you in over a century can make even basic connections like this one then what good are you?
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 14 2013: 7. The laws of physics, including gravity work in the same way if the arrow of time is reversed so objects which have crossed an event horizon would have to escape if time were reversed but gravity is still an attractive force when time is reversed. The official explanation is that black holes time into white holes. What force powers then and how can they be considered a valid solution when they have no way to form?

    8. If the standard description of an expanding event horizon is correct then how could any object possibly feel the gravitational effects of a black hole if both the event horizon and the gravitational effects of the black hole are moving outwards at the speed of light locally and slower as an inverse square as the distance of the observer increases?

    9. Objects get more and more length contracted and time dilated as they approach an event horizon as gravity increases. If they were able to reach the horizon then they would be moving at a velocity of the speed of light relative to the black hole and it would be infinitely length contracted and time dilated into a singularity, so how can an event horizon possibly be reached?
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 14 2013: 4. If an object were able to cross an event horizon and it was attached by a rope to an object outside the horizon then from the outside objects perspective the other object can always be pulled away without the rope snapping because nothing can reach the horizon from the outside objects frame of reference, but from the other objects perspective it can't ever be pulled out. This clearly shows that the two coordinate systems are incompatible so how can they both be considered true?

    5. How close to the horizon does an object have to be before the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates become invalid reference systems? It can't happen suddenly because that doesn't make any sense. How can the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates be considered valid at any distance from a black hole if they both fail at an event horizon?

    6. In SR as objects accelerate their Rindler horizon is always the same distance behind them as the horizon of their own light is in front of them and if they were somehow able to reach the speed of light their Rindler horizon would have caught up with them. There's also a Rindler behind objects being gravitationally accelerated towards a black hole that works in exactly the same way. If an object were somehow able to reach an event horizon then it would be moving at a relative velocity of the speed of light and its Rindler horizon would have caught up with it, which makes no sense. Why describe acceleration due to mass as any different from acceleration due to energy when there's absolutely no need to and relative velocities obviously add together in the way that SR describes regardless of what accelerated the objects?
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 14 2013: Alright that's enough messing about now. For anyone who thinks that GR is a valid theory, answer these:

    1. The difference in the strength of a force over different parts of the same extended body. What am I describing? Tidal force or proper acceleration? Both! If all parts of an object are accelerated together at the same rate the object feels like it's inertial. This is because acceleration is just as relative as velocity, which is what Machs principle is dancing around without ever actually stating. Can anyone point out a single difference between proper acceleration and tidal force?

    2. According to GR the reason we feel our weight is because the ground is applying an electro-magnetic force on objects on the surface and pushing them up, like being in a lift. That's fine, but it also says that the reason that we can't feel the "pseudo"-force of gravity pulling us down is because gravity is inertial and can't felt. That's crap. The reason we can't feel gravity pulling us down is because it's very evenly distributed over our bodies so the proper acceleration (tidal force) is negligible whereas the acceleration pushing us up is all concentrated on our points of contact with the ground, which we can increase and reduce the force felt simply by sitting or laying down. The whole theory of GR is based on the idea that gravitational acceleration is inertial. If this ridiculous assumption is wrong then whole thing fails. Can anyone point to a single piece of evidence or an observation that suggests that gravitational acceleration is inertial?

    3. How can an object reach an event horizon when it's completely impossible from the perspective of any external object? If it's always possible for an object moving towards a black hole to accelerate away then a black hole is unreachable. How can the different parts of an extended object cross an event horizon at different times when it's impossible for the leading edge of the object to reach it before the trailing parts?
  • thumb

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 10 2013: General Relativity is Valid
    If you were to begin your experiment with one additional and scary assumption, everything would work out.

    The assumption is that time is an atomic process occurring in discrete increments as a function of gravitation. This implies that since time is an atomic process, subatomic particles have no chronological constraints.

    This is why elementary particles behave simultaneously as waves and particles, existing in all possible states. Its because they're not bound by time.

    Objects are only large systems of elementary particles. If the gravitation process is interrupted for objects, they too can behave as elementary particles defying the prevailing notions of time, distance, velocity, and reality.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 11 2013: Of course GR isn't valid. How can anything that contradicts itself be valid? It's based on the assumption that free-fall is inertial but it can't possibly be.

      Congratulations, that's a new one. I've never had anyone trying to use quantum mechanics to justify GR before. You've completely lost me though. You're going to have to clarify how exactly you think the dual nature of matter invalidates or changes the context of anything I've said, because I can't see how it possibly could.

      Time is not a function of gravitation. Gravitation slow the passage of time in exactly the same way that proper acceleration does because they're equivalent, which is why GR fails. What do you mean by "If the gravitation process is interrupted"?
      • thumb

        B Ross

        • 0
        May 13 2013: Yes, gravitation slows the passage of time for one object that is near a much larger object. The gravity of the much larger object impedes the process of gravitation in the smaller object.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 14 2013: What? That's a very strange way of wording it. For a start the size of the object is irrelevant, it's mass. Much larger? How much larger? It doesn't matter anyway because the gravity of any massive object affects the passage of time of much more massive objects as well as the other way round. A speak of dust near the sun slows the passage of time for the sun, slightly. The gravitation of an object doesn't impede the gravitation of other objects. I've still got absolutely no idea how the wave/particle duality of subatomic particles could have anything to do with anything I've said in this thread?
  • thumb
    May 3 2013: Hi Awal,

    I am sure that in your studies of special relativity and general relativity you might have come in contact with the concept of relativity of simultaneity of an event. Two observers can disagree regarding the timing of an event, because the only way they have to measure it is the light (or any electromagnetic signal) that originates in the event and reaches each observer.

    Event horizon is the point in spacetime beyond which an object has no way of escaping the black hole's gravitational attraction. For sufficiently large black holes, the event horizon is so far away from the center of the black hole, that an object can cross it at low velocity without ever noticing that it has fallen into a no-return zone. Whether an observer outside can or cannot "see" it crossing is irrelevant to the reality that it is now trapped

    But then again, I cannot tell if your question is posed from the point of view of physics or philosophy

    cheers

    Andres
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 4 2013: Yes, obviously if space at time are observer dependent then simultaneous takes on a different context. It's relative to the observer, but it's irrelevant. The fact that no object can ever be observed reaching an event horizon however isn't. You seem to be implying that it's purely an optical effect and not an accurate picture of what's really happening but this isn't the case. It's not due to any delay of the time the light takes to reach an observer.

      No object can be seen reaching an event horizon no matter how close an observer gets to the horizon. This means that the front of an object can't reach the horizon from the perspective of the rest of the same object. It makes no sense to claim than an object can pass through an event horizon of a black hole with any mass without noticing anything. For one thing it would experience infinite tidal force as the leading edge is accelerated away from the rest to a relative velocity greater than the speed of light. If the Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinates aren't accurate at the event horizon then they have to fail outside the horizon as well because no object can ever reach an horizon using those coordinate systems, which would mean that neither are ever completely accurate because they can't suddenly stop working at a certain distance away. Both are completely accurate and cover the whole manifold.

      The Schwartzschild coordinates describe a difference in relative velocity and the Rindler coordinates describe the point of view of an accelerator, and both apply equally to SR as they do to GR because the physics of accelerating doesn't change at all when it's being caused by mass instead of energy. The only difference is that mass pulls objects together and energy pushes them apart, and acceleration due to mass is weaker when it's being caused by mass because E=mc^2.
      • thumb
        May 4 2013: A wal, please send me your calculations, i'll be happy to take a look at them and tell you if i find an inconsistence. i studied physics and i have friends that speciallize in general relativity.

        as you know, an argument like this is not a proof, but it is a mental exercise that must be then supported by a mathematical calculation, disproof of general relativity cannot be achieved merely by constructung an argument that sounds strange to our everyday logic, but by taking a prediction of the theory and either perform a repeatable observation that falsifies it, or by demostrating that the mathematical model used to support the theory is inconsistent

        cheers!
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 5 2013: You can use logic to disprove a theory. Mathematics is just an expression of logic, so if something is logically inconsistent then it's mathematically inconsistent. I can't give you any equations because that's just not how I think, but that doesn't mean that I can't be quantative.

          If you agree that the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems a accurate then it is absolutely impossible to reach an event horizon. If you think that it is possible to reach an event horizon then you have to be asserting that the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems fail at some distance outside the event horizon because you need to switch coordinate systems to reach it. You can't have it both ways.

          If they fail to give an accurate description at a certain distance away from an event horizon then they are never completely valid and are just a rough approximation at best at any distance. How close to the event horizon do you have to be before they stop working?
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 5 2013: Predictions:
          1. Gravity is much weaker than the other forces because it’s a force of mass rather than a force of energy, and because E=mc2, the strength of acceleration due to gravity times the speed of light squared is exactly equal to the strength of acceleration due to energy.

          2. A black hole is a perfect four dimensional sphere so its length in time is the same as its length in the spatial dimensions, so its life span depends entirely on its mass.

          3. The mass of a black hole partly depends on how far away it’s observed from because length contraction and time dilation increase the closer an observer is to it, which is why there are no nearby quasars. A black holes mass decreases as an object approaches it and increases as an object moves away from it.

          4. Free-fall is not inertial. It’s proper acceleration, so the speed of light will never be c locally relative to a free-falling observer, just as it’s never c relative to an accelerating observer, and it behaves in exactly the same way, taking more acceleration to close the gap by the same amount as its acceleration increases.

          5. There is a Rindler horizon when an object is accelerated by mass just as there is when an object is accelerated by energy, and an event horizon is the opposite to this horizon and so behaves in exactly the same way as the speed of light does when an object uses energy to accelerate.

          6. It’s always possible to move away from a black hole because its event horizon can never be reached. If an object falls towards a black hole and is attached by a rope to a more distant object which waits until the rope goes taught, which is worked out before hand to be after the falling objects has crossed the event horizon from its own perspective according to general relativity then the more distant object will still be able to pull the falling object away.
      • thumb
        May 6 2013: A wal,

        You cannot use only logic to disprove a theory in physics. I will have to disagree with you in your assessment of what mathematics is and what consitutes scientific "proof".

        As it has happened a few times in the conversations here on TED, some people believe that science is something that can be "debated and won or defeated by argument". Nothing futher away from the way the scientific method works. A court of law could find and support a counterargument for a physical theory and it would make no difference. 99% of the population of the planet could vote that a particular physical law does not apply and it would not matter one bit either. Scientific theories are not legally defendable arguments or democratically elected truths

        Take for example the fact that an elementary particle can be in two places at the exact same time. Does that fit within conventional logic? However, the mathematical model of quantum mechanics predicts this effect, experiments have confirmed it, and no experiment so far has been able to disprove it

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 7 2013: No one could consrtruct a case like this against SR because you can't do that with a self-consistent model. A partical being detected in two places at once isn't really a contradiction because particles can't have a well defined position in space-time (velocity and position in space at the same time). It's counterintuative if you're not used to thinking in that way but it's not illogical. There's a big difference. If a theory doesn't make logical sense then it's wrong. The logic may be hard to find but it's always there if it's true. GRs description is a complete impossibility. It simply doesn't work. It's not even self-consistent.

          I can tell you've studied physics in the mainstream. You're all happy to discuss what happens in real terms until I say something you can't argue with and then you turtle up into 'the physics doesn't need to be explained in a logical way because that's not how science works and it doesn't matter that I can't explain how it could even be possible in reality.' Oh yes it does! It matters a lot. That's just your fallbackback position when you've got nowhere else to go. It's a physicists no best and you have no right to question us attitude. Sorry but if no one can explain it then no one really understands it. I've been at this a while and no one has been able to come anywhere near justifying the assertions of GR, because it can't be done.

          Show me something imperical that even suggests that free-fall is inertial. It's so obvious that gravitational acceleration works in exactly the same way as acceleration in SR. Does it really make sense to you that a finite amount of acceleration in one direction couldn't be overcome by any amount of acceleration in the opposite direction? You haven't answered my previous question yet. Do you agree that no object can ever reach a black hole or do you think that both the Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinate systems are inacurate? If it's neither then please explain how this can be possible.
      • thumb
        May 7 2013: Hi again A wal. i an not falling to any phycisist "turttle up" i said a theory in physics can't be disproved just by constructing an argument that sounds illogical. i am just sharing with you what i learned when i studied physics. i am not sure if it really matters that i did it at a university, since studying at "main stream" you can learn the same thing

        i am curious to see your mathematical calculations because that is the only way i could help in case you are correct in your critique to Einstein's theory. Also, by looking at them i can tell you if any other phycisist has proposed something similar in the past and where they failed or succeeded. the days when philosophy could contribute to the phisical sciences by merely constructing arguments are long gone, and it has been at least a century since every scientific proof has been done in the way i explained above

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 7 2013: It does matter how you learned it because you've picked up their mentality and you're ignoring all my points. For a the moment I'll go along with your opinion that logical can't be used to disprove a model. I completely disagree but that's okay because we can continue the discussion without arguing about what constitutes a proof.

          Do you agree that no object can ever reach a black hole or do you think that both the Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinate systems are inaccurate?

          Do you think that a singularity is a single point in time as well as space? If you do then you agree with my description of gravity. If you don't then please explain how and why a singularity would be singular in space but not in time making a four dimension cone shape instead of a nice neat hypershere when time and space are physically equivalent to each other.

          Does it make sense to you that a finite amount of acceleration in one direction couldn't be overcome by any amount of acceleration in the opposite direction?

          Do you have anything you can show that suggests that free-fall is inertial and doesn't work in the same way as acceleration in SR, anything at all?
      • thumb
        May 7 2013: Hi A wal,

        Sorry that you feel compelled to attack us physicists. Yes i will confess that more than just facts, I learned a different way to approach problem resolution. I do not recall any scientific advance (from the aerodynamics of airplanes, to the quantum mechanics that make the micro-chip possible) that has been proved or disproveed by debating in the format of highschool debate clubs

        Whether my approach is better or worse to solve real problems than the debate format is debatable (pun intended)

        I can follow your thought experiments too, but please do not try to equate these thought experiments to scientific proofs

        I disagree with your first assessment. If no object could ever reach beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it would never be black, as even being merely a few microns outside the event horizon would allow light to escape from it. If no mass ever entered a black hole it would not be able to form. Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinate systems are approximations as to how energy, space and time behave outside of the event horizon. They are not laws given by any god. They can be superceeded and extended

        I have no clue of what a singularity is. Nor i know anyone who can claim they know. Singularity is a term to say: "our current physics laws do not reach beyond certain limit" (say 99.99% of the cases). That is how science advances: not by entirely replacing old concepts, but by encomprising them into new and more general laws. it is no mistery that General Relativity is an extension of Special Relativity, not it's "substitute"

        When you say a finite amount of acceleration do you mean an acceleration applied for a finite time? What kind of acceleration and what kind of time? that is why i need to see your mathematical calculations, it is easy to get lost without specifics.

        As for free-fall being inertial, i might need you to refer me to some sources so i am on the same page, i do not understand what you mean by the statement

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: Sorry, my back's up as soon as I go into a conversation with a physicist now because most of the physicists I've had contact have been the most closed minded people and dishonest people I've ever spoken to. Dishonest people have no problem lying to themselves. That's why not one of them has realised that GR is wrong because it's based on a faulty assumption that free-fall and inertial motion are equivalent, when in reality the far simpler truth is that free-fall and acceleration are equivalent and tidal force is describing proper acceleration. They've had plenty of time to spot it. The debate format and deductive reasoning is what I'm good at and not just on this topic, and it's something mainstream physics is severely lacking. No imagination. It's my element, so of course I'm going to use it. What really pisses me off about most physicists is their attempts to make it seem inferior to their methods when in fact it's the only way that science can ever progress because it's where new ideas come from. The scientific method is merely for confirmation, yet they seem to think that's it's all that's needed in physics. Their whole mentality is blindly accept what they've been told and try to marginalise anything and anyone that refutes it.

          Like I said, I can't give you any equations to check because I don't have any. I don't think in that way. If I'm being unclear about something you can just ask. If I can't explain it in definite terms then it's not worth anything, I know that. Besides, all the equations should be in SR anyway because gravitational acceleration and proper acceleration are exactly the same except that gravitational acceleration is caused by mass pulling objects together and proper acceleration is caused by energy pushing objects apart. I mean that I finite amount of gravitation can't be overcome with any amount of proper acceleration according to GR, which is really silly.

          Black holes would still be black because of redshift.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: The equivalence principle states that gravitational acceleration is indistinguishable from inertial motion because it can't be felt, while conventional acceleration can be, which is why we feel our weight when we're standing on Earth. According to GR that's why we can't feel ourselves being pulled down on Earth but we can feel ourselves being pushed up. The reason we can feel our weight is because the force of the ground pushing us up isn't evenly distributed. The force is only applied to our points of contact with the ground. That's why we feel like we weigh less while we lay down and spread the force out. We feel the difference in the amount of force over the different parts of our body. The difference in the strength of gravity (tidal force) over the different parts of our body is far too marginal for us to feel. Gravitational acceleration isn't inertial, it's proper acceleration.

          A coordinate system that describes objects capable of reaching the event horizon of a black hole is not an extension of the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems, it's a direct contradiction. Relativity means that observers can disagree about when an event happens without contradicting each other but never if an even happens or not. No object can either reach an event horizon according to the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates and they aren't compatible with any coordinate systems that allow it.

          I asked if you thought that singularities occupy a single point in time. The fact that they do means that they're not a point where physics breaks down. Length contraction and time dilation are equivalent. Singularities are infinitely length contracted and time dilated because they represent infinite acceleration. There's less time dilation and length contraction the further away you get as an inverse square of the distance, making the singularity bigger the further away it's observed from, but always a perfect four dimensional sphere.
      • thumb
        May 9 2013: Hi again A wal,

        Sorry if the character of my response is not as friendly as it should be. Your comments show a lack of respect to me, so at least i want to explain my position better.

        Yes I am a physicist and you are not, and yes our methods are bound to be different. Not talking about one being superior to the other, but what kind of problems are they useful for.

        If I asked you what technological advance had been achieved based on knowledge acquired using the high school debate club method is because I do not recall any. All of the ones i can think of have come about after hours of theorizing, and experimenting and testing and debunking using the scientific method.

        It would be silly (albeit interesting to try) to try to use the scientific method when trying to argue and convince people about the benefits of certain piece of legislation, so i assume that is why politicians usually go with the debate method.

        It is impossible for you and me to have a serious discussion about General Relativity because 1) you don't fully understand it and 2) you have not realized that each problem requires its methods

        Of course it is easy to see that you are in your element and at your best using the debate method, which is great since it would be a shame if all people had the same mental processes, but perhaps you can contribute a lot more attacking problems that can actually benefit from the debate method, I am sure you could have a very promising future as a lawyer or a politician, but certainly not in theoretical physics

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: I didn’t mean to show any disrespect to you personally. Sorry about that. I completely disagree though. I think this is by far the best method for theoretical physics. It’s true that I can’t come up with any scientific proofs and I can come up with logical ones. The scientific method is used to test hypothesis, it’s completely useless to try to use it to come up with one.

          Here's another thought experiment. I really like this one. Three objects, one of which maintains a constant distance from an event horizon (hovers). One free-falls towards it, while the other accelerates away from the hovering object at an increasing rate that constantly matches the rate that the free-falling object is accelerating away from the hoverer. First I'll use SR to describe the reference frame of the one using conventional accelerating to move away. As it accelerates it's Rindler horizon (the point beyond which nothing could ever catch an accelerating object as long as it continues to accelerate at at least the same rate) gets closer to the accelerator as it's accelerating increases. The Rindler horizon can never catches up to the accelerator, it increases at a slower rate as the objects acceleration increases despite the fact that its rate of acceleration is constantly increasing to match the free-fallers increasing acceleration. If the proper accelerator were to shine a light beam in front of it then it would see that the light is moving away from it slower than the normal speed of light (the speed of light is only constant for inertial observers). The rate that it closes the gap on the velocity of its own light is identical to the rate that the Rindler horizon is catching up to from behind. If it were able to catch up to its own light then its Rindler horizon would have caught up to it, they're always the same distance away from the accelerator...
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: ...Now if we look at the free-fallers frame of reference then it's identical if it's described properly. There is again a Rindler horizon that approaches from behind the free-faller at a slower rate as the objects acceleration increases despite the fact that its rate of acceleration is constantly increasing. If the free-falling object were to shine a light beam in front of it then it would also see that the light is moving away from it slower than the normal speed of light. Nothing I've said so far contradicts GR but now I'm going to. The rate that it closes the gap on the velocity of its own light is identical to the rate that the Rindler horizon is catching up to from behind. If it were able to catch up to its own light then its Rindler horizon would have caught up to it, they're always the same distance away from the free-faller. According to GR an object catches up to its own light and overtakes it when it crosses an event horizon. No chance in hell!
  • May 3 2013: A wal - sorry about that my friend. There are many things to consider - Maybe you can tell me? Do we have a better model?
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 3 2013: Yes! It's called the special theory of relativity. It does the job perfectly without contradicting itself and it's much simpler.
      • May 4 2013: I am sorry The simplerspecial theory is intelligible,but someone at my level cannot make comparisons.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • +1
          May 4 2013: SR describes acceleration as objects following a curved path through flat space-time while GR describes gravitational acceleration as objects following a straight path through curved space-time. There's nothing wrong with this way of looking at it but GR doesn't do it correctly.

          SR can also be thought of as describing objects that are following straight paths through curved space-time, in the presence of energy rather than mass. The two are physically equivalent. GR is based on an assumption that gravitational free-fall is an inertial frame. It isn't, and this invalidates the whole thing.
  • thumb
    May 1 2013: In Time-Space
    Maybe an event on an event horizon never ends?
    Maybe an event that passes the horizon never existed?
    Maybe what is, is always at the horizon?
    Maybe what is past the horizon, never was at the horizon?

    Any expressions evaluated?
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 2 2013: There are no events happening on an event horizon for exactly the same reason that there are no events happening at a relative velocity of the speed of light.
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 1 2013: Fritzie Reisner: "A wal, you mentioned in your other thread that you have posed these questions on a science site where you sought answers from physicists and were not satisfied at the responses you got. Would you mind sharing which sites you have tried? I ask this because I have wondered which the best such science forums are.

    I know the American Physical Society has a great site, as does NASA, but those are not forums."


    It depends what you're after. If you want to learn the standard model then physicsforums.com is probably the best. That's where I learned relativity. I had a basic understanding when I started posting there and by the time I got banned I understood it inside out, and how SR and not GR is the correct description of gravitational acceleration. It was my fault I got banned. I lost my temper when it became clear that they had a religious mentality. There's sciforums.com. They've crippled my account so I can't post there any more because they had no reason to ban me and I was making them look stupid. There's scienceforums.net. They've banned me from talking about this because they couldn't counter my arguments. Scienceforums.com has the best people, what I would call real scientists, but it's a ghost town compared to the others, which is a great shame. It seems people really buy into the fake scientists methods of making everything sound as complicated as possible to make themselves look clever. If you don't question what they hold as gospel you'll be fine.
    • thumb
      May 2 2013: Thanks, A wal, for the information. I have heard good things about physicsforums.com before, as TEDster John Moonstroller is a regular participant there- an engineer, as I remember.

      I will look at scienceforums.com. I can believe a site that draws professional scientists would have less activity than one that draws a very broad audience.
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    May 1 2013: I didn't realise that I was posting a closing comment in the other thread. The page didn't load up properly. It's sorted now. That topic was supposed to last a month as well. I've got other questions like that and I was going to post them one at a time over the month. Can that topic be extended deleted so I can start again?


    george lockwood: "These are a long way away - How do we experiment? What are the equations you are using and how do you plug in the numbers? Space travel is best experienced at the movies. Lots of energy, lots of time, and don't forget cosmic radiation."

    All the equations can be found in SR. Logical thought experiments using SR are all that's needed.
  • May 1 2013: If one of you 3 or any scientist would care to take things a step further, I'm right here. I noticed that none of you replied directly to my challenge. You must all be such nice guys. Can one of you defend light theory? Unless you can defend your claims, you're just copy and pasting.
    • thumb
      May 1 2013: I see no challenge by you. You asked us to think why blackholes are always at the center of the galaxies. well, we are thinking. As of now, I don't know why. I think no consistent explanation has emerged on this - even astrophysicists are looking for the answer. So, what exactly is your challenge?
      What is this light theory you want defended? Do you mean the assertion of SR that speed of light in vacuum is invariant and a physical constant? I think that does not need to be defended. Up till now, not a single experimental result show any speed in excess of that of light (including the CERN claim, which incidentally fell through). If you are basing your statement on Jim Hill and Barry Cox's work, it is a mathematical extension of SR, nothing empirically verified and not sufficiently peer reviewed.
      I think it is simplistic to say a scientific theory is wrong or right. A scientific theory stands on the basis of empirical evidence and interpreting the evidences in favor of the theory. As long as this holds true and no better explanation replaces it, one can say it is highly probable that things work this way. I think professional scientists are wary of using terms like 'proof', 'right' or 'wrong'.
      Will you explain why GR is wrong and which way? And why do you think it is wishful thinking?
      • May 1 2013: Hello Pabitra, I'm glad you responded. First I'll address the theory of sciences that claims black holes are at the very center of most every galaxy. I say that science is right that a black hole is at the center of each galaxy, but that science is totally wrong to think that a star goes super nova at the center of every galaxy---think about it, right in the center of every " symmetrical galaxy". Why all symmetrical galaxies and why right in the center? Its not because stars went nova, its because black holes are a braking system for each galaxy, so it doesn't over rev and destroy itself. Its a simple matter of physics.

        Consider the reverse. What stops a hurricane or tornado? If you turn loose of a pencil in space, what happens to that pencil? Here's the most pertinent question. If everything around you is spinning, will you spin? You already are. What creates spin?

        A black hole is at the center of every galaxy, because the galaxy is symmetrical. The whole galaxy is spinning at between 300 and 600,000 miles per hour. That suggests that the galaxy may spin even faster, depending on the galaxy as a whole.

        What do we call something spinning at that rate? We
        Call it a vortex, a hurricane, a tornado, a whirlwind, a whirlpool, depending and where are those things located? They are at the center of some kind of storm or clash. Each galaxy spins super fast and each planet and star spins. The center of each galaxy is the focal point for the spin of the galaxy.

        There are still the questions about light theory.

        If the black holes are not a brake, then they are simply cause and effect.
      • May 1 2013: What is GR?
      • May 1 2013: Science claims gravity is an attractant, which it is, but it is also a repellant. Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth, while the junk in lower orbit eventually falls back to earth.
        • thumb
          May 1 2013: Science does not 'claim' gravity is always attractive. Under the general relativity, gravity is the result of following spatial geometry (change in the normal shape of space) caused by local mass-energy. This theory holds that it is the altered shape of space, deformed by massive objects, that causes 'gravity', which is actually a property of deformed space rather than being a true force. Although the equations cannot produce a "negative geometry" normally, it is possible to do so using a "negative mass". The same equations do not, of themselves, rule out the existence of negative mass.
          Problem however is that the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes all presently known forms of matter, does not include negative mass. Although cosmological dark matter may consist of particles outside the Standard Model whose nature is unknown, their mass is ostensibly known – since they were postulated from their gravitational effects on surrounding objects, which implies their mass is positive. (The proposed cosmological dark energy, on the other hand, is more complicated, since according to general relativity the effects of both its energy density and its negative pressure contribute to its gravitational effect.)
          But since you are saying gravity can repel also, you can win 1 million Euro from Gode Stiftung. Good luck.
          http://www.goede-stiftung.org/uk/institute-for-gravity-research/goede-award.html
      • May 1 2013: As with gravitational lensing, I offer cause and effect, while you through science offer postulation.

        Light theory is bogus as well. Just think about the earth-- moon light trial against the claims of science itself, about dark matter, star nurseries and the like, can you defend the ignorance and dichotomies by science?
      • May 1 2013: The challenge above is not for cut and pasters or prideful ignorance. In other words, if you don't read and fully understand the earth to moon light test, don't bother.
  • Apr 28 2013: I agree that general relativity is wrong in different ways, such as the speed of light theory and gravitational lensing. I haven't read up on the subject you bring and in the manner you bring, so I won't try to address that. However, ask yourself why black holes are always at the center of the galaxies. I agree, general relativity is wishful thinking in several ways.

    I am not a physicist.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 1 2013: That's okay, neither am I. There's nothing wrong with the speed of light theory, that's special relativity and it's easily demonstrated. If the speed of light is constant (the same for all observers regardless other their velocity relative to other objects), and the only way all observers can agree on the same speed of light relative themselves is if they don't agree on either the length of time or the length of space between two points. It's actually half of each because any two points are separated by time and one spacial dimension because you can draw a straight one dimensional line between any two points. Velocity is nothing more than a measurement of distance over time and if the speed of light remains constant for all inertial (non-accelerating observers then something else has to change. Space contracts and time dilates when observing an object with a different relative velocity to keep the speed of light the same. The situation is symmetric though, so both observers will see the other as shortened and moving slower through time. When an object accelerates from one frame to another it's moving into a frame of reference where time and space are measured differently, which is responsible for the difference in age in the twin paradox. Objects with different relative velocities will measure time and space differently but no two frames of reference can contradict each other, which is exactly what happens in general relativitys description of a black hole.

      Gravity is always an attractive force, even if the arrow of time is reversed! There are some people who think that gravity becomes repulsive at a certain distance and this is what’s responsible for dark energy. I don’t believe that for a second.

      What's wrong with gravitational lensing? It works just like a telescope.

      Black holes are at the centre of galaxies for the same reason the largest body in the solar system is in the centre of it.
      • May 1 2013: If you refute what I wrote, do so. If not, most people can copy and paste.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 2 2013: I didn't copy it. I never do that! Every one of my posts is my own words. If the speed of light is the same for all non-accelerating observers (which it is) then the same light has to be moving at different speeds for two observers with a different relative velocities once the difference in their relative velocities is taken into account. The only way this can happen is if the measurements for space and time are observer dependant and not fixed. Velocity is a just measurement of distance over time. Space contracts and time dilates when viewing observers moving relative to the observer so that the speed of light is the same for every inertial observer and there's no contradiction. If an observer moving between planet A and planet B (which are at rest relative to each other for the sake of simplicity) measures a light beam passing them at the speed of light and another observer moving between planet A and planet B at twice the relative velocity measures the same light passing themselves at the same speed as the first observer measured the same light passing themselves then the second observer is measuring a shorter period of time for the light to move between the two planets. This is because a time is moving slower for the second observer than it is for the first one (time dilation) and the distance between the two planets is less from the perspective of the second observer (length contraction).

          All this is from the frame of reference of the two planets. From the perspective of the second observer it's the first observer that's time dilated and length contracted. There's no contradiction because the two planets are more time dilated and length contracted from the second observers perspective than they are from the first ones because the moving at a greater relative velocity from the second observers perspective than they are from the first ones.
      • May 2 2013: Try not to confuse things. Read about the light test performed between the earth and moon. Once you do that, let me know.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 3 2013: Link?

          I'm not confusing anything. There's been many tests that confirm the consistency of the speed of light. If two objects moving at different relative velocities measure light moving past them at the same speed then something has to give. Velocity is a measurement of distance over time and both change by the same amount when changing frames of reference to keep the speed of light constant for every inertial (non-accelerating) observer. This is where the formula for length contraction and time dilation comes from. It's called the Lorenz transformations. How simple do you want it?
      • May 4 2013: Read about the light test performed between the earth and moon. Once you do that, let me know.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 4 2013: The only test I know of that involves measuring the light between the Earth and moon is the laser that they point at the mirror on the moon and measure how long it takes for the light to return, which is how they found out that the moon is very slowly moving away from us. It can't be that because it has nothing to do with it.

          Like I said, do you have a link?
      • May 4 2013: Look at the first picture and tell us what the green beam of light represents and its direction.

        http://m.spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/forgotten-soviet-moon-rover-beams-light-back-to-earth/0

        After you give the answer above, the site I want to show, will reveal other things.

        http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 5 2013: I had a quick look. I'll read it properly later, but why did you link to the laser and mirror test that I already said was completely irrelevant? What is it that you think invalidates the consistency of the speed of light? Do you have any idea how much evidence there is for it? Stop believing what you want to be true. That will get you nowhere! Why would anyone not want special relativity to be true anyway? It's beautiful. Are you a creationist?
      • May 5 2013: Let me know if and when you read and fully understand the second site I gave. It is also noted that you didn't bother answering my question about the first site. If you are so sure you are right, then you must believe I will make a fool of myself. All you need do is play along. On the other hand, if I'm right or you can't find answers from science to counter my claims, you will likely get mad that your pride has been hurt, rather than learning from it, at least that's how most people react when science can't protect them.

        Most that is said in science is manipulated by a few. Any scientist daring to speak out puts his or her neck on the chopping block.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 5 2013: I haven't read the first site yet. I'll do it later.

          I've read the second link. I've told you twice already that the laser mirror experiment has nothing to do with this! What is it about it that you think invalidates the consistency of the speed of light?

          I agree with your last paragraph but that doesn't make them automatically wrong.
      • May 5 2013: I didn't say to read the first sight. I simply asked you to look at the first picture and tell us what you think the green beam of light represents and where is that light aimed. You can't even get that straight. You should talk to others like yourself, pulling teeth is for dentists. Its no wonder most people can't think for themselves.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 7 2013: Oh sorry, you did say that. I just assumed you meant to actually read the words and not just look at a picture. To be honest I'm not paying much attention when I read your posts. It's very difficult to read properly when you're laughing.

          That green light beam is an effect of looking at light through a lens. You can even do it by squinting your eyes. I'm not sure what it's called. It might be a form of refraction. What do you think it is?

          Why did you link to the second site? You still haven't said what you think it is about it that invalidates SR.
      • May 7 2013: Keep pretending, iot works for you.
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2013: I am not a "relativity expert". I am a sophomoric sciolist. Have you exhaustively incorporated the the Blandford-Znajek process in your attempt to falsify General Relativity?
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 1 2013: Not as far as I know. Okay, I googled it and it seems to be an explanation for quasar jets. I don't think it's directly related to what I've been saying but I'll have a proper look later.
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2013: inside out not outside in....